ESL here. Thinking about reading works by William S. Burroughs in English. How hard/complex is it for native speakers? Anything peculiar I need to know before diving in?
Also, I guess, W.S.B. General.
I've read Naked Lunch, the Soft Machine and the Western Lands trilogy (?) in the original language and I'm Italian. Not the easiest thing but you can absolutely do it. I'd suggest reading some other author before him but if you're asking I'm fairly sure you already did, so go right ahead and jump into his works. Take your time, learn through the context, listen to the sound/musicality of the words, if you're stuck don't be afraid to go online and look for help and just have fun. He's a great author in that respect. I'd also suggest you read Hunter Thompson in the original, absolute blast.
I think Interzone, Exterminator!, and The Burroughs File would be easiest.
The Cat Inside and My Education are also fairly straightforward.
Naked Lunch probably wouldn't be too hard.
Red Night trilogy would be about as easy as Naked Lunch.
The Wild Boys would be a touch harder than that.
Nova Trilogy would probably be the most difficult.
In general, his earliest stuff is easy, late stuff is easy, middle is hard.
>>8232395
Yeah, seconding this. Red Night trilogy would probably be his easiest "experimental" text.
Always wondered why his late stuff was put so far down that literature iceberg chart thingie, I mean, it's almost obnoxiously straightforward for his standards.
>>8232402
The iceberg chart was probably made by people who haven't read that many books. They read (the first few chapters of) Naked Lunch, they hear about the Nova Trilogy, they connect the two points and assume everything forward is lunacy.
It also occurs to me that I forgot to mention Junkie and Queer. They're at the first level.
It'll be difficult if you're working out words by using the context, because his cut-up method means there isn't really any context.
>>8232408
Yeah, I imagined. Way to invalidate everything you say. By the way, since you seem a fairly assiduous Burroughs reader, have you taken a look at Hakim Bey's TAZ?
>>8232373
Thanks, man. Not a huge fan of Hunter Thompson, but might as well give it a shot once again.
>>8232402
>Red Night trilogy would probably be his easiest "experimental" text.
Sounds terrific, because that's exactly what I wanted to read first.
I was always wondering about that "late Delillo" position in the iceberg chart. Is his late works really that deep or is it just another pretentious bullshit by whoever made this chart?
>>8232111
Junkie and Queer are very easy compared to his other work.
>>8232421
>is it just another pretentious bullshit by whoever made this chart?
This. I'm beginning to think that chart was made purely to get a rise out of people.
Anyway, since I'm the anon you replied to both times, I wish you a good reading of the trilogy - I had a lot of fun with it, even if the first book had a weird, jittery flow that seemed highly atypical of Burroughs, since all of his other works flow smoothly from scene to scen (or consciousness to consciousness, if you prefer).
I suggested Thompson because of his use of English, somewhat vernacular and dated but still fairly readable; if you can get through him without problems, Burroughs won't be much worse.
>>8232429
I was going to say this.
>>8232412
I haven't, though I've been meaning to for a little while. I've never seen it brought up alongside Burroughs before, so I'll certainly be more inclined to read it now. Thanks a lot.
>>8232421
>I was always wondering about that "late Delillo" position in the iceberg chart. Is his late works really that deep or is it just another pretentious bullshit by whoever made this chart?
late delillo is the same, he didnt really progress for his whole career.
His language is very clinical and oblique. So yeah, hopefully your English is good.
>>8232467
it's not the same, it's worse, or at least not as good. he's never really been able to follow up underworld. that said I haven't read his newest.
and also the chart is obviously meant to be a bit absurd and silly -- I don't think anyone actually believes books or authors could be reduced to a position on a single scale of "depth."
>>8232841
> I don't think anyone actually believes books or authors could be reduced to a position on a single scale of "depth."
I'll just have to say, sadly, lurk moar. Wish it wasn't like this.
